Our Freedom of speech is given to us, among our many other rights, so we the people can stand up for our words and be safe to talk our own opinions. But, with this freedom comes limitations that are tested everyday. Many forms of speech are prohibited in order to keep the peace in the atmosphere. We are limited by the government in order to keep equilibrium of society steady. Even though Chaplinsky had his right to speak, he did violate the law by insulting others and so he would be tried in 1942 in the supreme court as the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. In the 1940s, were the United States decided to join the war on December 7, 1941. Our great nation stood up and took action against the enemy, when the bombing of Pearl Harbor struck a fire
…show more content…
But, the defense of the his opponent used the law of hate speech. Hate speech is a speech that promotes hatred toward a particular race, religion, or other groups. Hate speech seemed to be on the rise in the United States as the end of the twentieth century. Many governments and universities have created laws and rules to prohibit hate speech. They believe hate speech discourages the targeted people from participating in society as equal citizens (Brannen 171). Walter Chaplinsky’s Lawyer, Hayden C. Covington, (Brannen 171) argued that his client was arrested for exercising his right. But, there are limitations to that speech that lead Chaplinsky to be arrested. After some time with the jury and hearing from both sides of this issue stirred up in New Hampshire. The vote among the the supreme court justices voted a unanimous decision going against Walter Chaplinsky (Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, Oyez). Justice Murphy delivered the opinion of the Court which stated “Appellant, a member of the sect known as Jehovah 's Witnesses, was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, § 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire” (“Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, LII”). In conclusion, we can see here we are able to exercise our freedom of speech. But, to keep in mind that any type of speech that might offend or hurt anyone is using our freedom of speech in the wrong manner. With many different types of limitations to the first amendment, The Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire court case clearly shows how fight words are restricted in our everyday
But, the defense of the his opponent used the law of hate speech. Hate speech is a speech that promotes hatred toward a particular race, religion, or other groups. Hate speech seemed to be on the rise in the United States as the end of the twentieth century. Many governments and universities have created laws and rules to prohibit hate speech. They believe hate speech discourages the targeted people from participating in society as equal citizens (Brannen 171). Walter Chaplinsky’s Lawyer, Hayden C. Covington, (Brannen 171) argued that his client was arrested for exercising his right. But, there are limitations to that speech that lead Chaplinsky to be arrested. After some time with the jury and hearing from both sides of this issue stirred up in New Hampshire. The vote among the the supreme court justices voted a unanimous decision going against Walter Chaplinsky (Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, Oyez). Justice Murphy delivered the opinion of the Court which stated “Appellant, a member of the sect known as Jehovah 's Witnesses, was convicted in the municipal court of Rochester, New Hampshire, for violation of Chapter 378, § 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire” (“Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, LII”). In conclusion, we can see here we are able to exercise our freedom of speech. But, to keep in mind that any type of speech that might offend or hurt anyone is using our freedom of speech in the wrong manner. With many different types of limitations to the first amendment, The Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire court case clearly shows how fight words are restricted in our everyday